Discussion (51) ¬

Or imagine that the Lord returns and all that is written in Revelation comes to pass and there is a new heaven and a new earth and physics is no longer applicable to this new realm. We will have new bodies that don’t age and fleas are no longer even a memory. Imagination is a wonderful things, yes?

If and only if there is a completely new realty structure then the basic mathematical equations and posits in physics will be different BUT physics and the scientific method will still be there to determine what those relationships are.

Some folks can accept the imagined idea of fleas being dominant after ka-billion decades and worshipping dogs but choke at imagining physics being different. Imagination is not what you think. Star Trek and Star Wars and any science fiction story suspends physics in order to tell their stories, it’s called fiction because it is imagined.

Have to strongly disagree. Science fiction doesn’t suspend fiction to tell stories. Fantasy does. But the entire premise of good science fiction is that it extrapolates science and lives within that framework. Certainly the word fiction means it’s “not true.” But it’s a story that should be possible and self-consistent within the framework of science.

I didn’t say that science fiction suspended fiction. I said it suspended physics. The Physics of Star Trek by Lawrence M. Krauss, forword by Stephen Hawking, explains why physics has to be disallowed in order for space travel between star systems to occur. Space operas have to make certain assumptions about science possiblilities and then tell it’s story within that framework. The Lensmen Series makes assumptions and tells it’s stories. It is science fiction but not good science. Good scientific background, consistency within that imagined universe, it-could-maybe-happen assumptions and good story telling make for good science fiction. Fantansy, on the other hand, make assumptions made about magic and unexplainable creatures from ancient times. We have to allow those in order to let the story be told. Trying to make sense of your cartoons based on fact and science would suck all the silliness and laugh worthiness out of them. Dog’s legs don’t bend that way, so what? The idea of a dog talking is worth the laugh.

You quote but incompletely – Physics “as we know it now” …… It is a basis of “Good Science” as opposed to what is put forth on Fox news etc, that every statement has the implied caveat ” as far as what evidence we have now proves”. Science is one of those things that is not supposed to be solid and constant, it is always changing and perfecting itself to better understand and define the universe. Religion says have faith but science asks you to prove it.

Of course, even past that point, Science, at least as used by those who use scientific arguments against religion, still takes on faith the idea that there are immutable physical laws describing the world, no matter how poorly we might understand them. From a practical standpoint, this is a useful* assumption to make, but as a belief it undermines the argument against faith that so many of its believers espouse.

*Without this assumption, logical deduction and planning cannot begin as the path ahead is pure chaos.

“Star Trek and Star Wars and any science fiction story suspends physics in order to tell their stories”

Incorrect.

Just about every theory or principle used in Star Trek was an actual theory being investigated by physicists. Tachyons … matter transmission … the use of a matter/antimatter reactor as a power source.

All of it was actual concepts being looked at, just none of it actually proven or even substantiated as more than just a fanciful thought of physicists. But I remember back in high school, in physics class, having discussions about “wavicles” (particles are waves and waves are particles – fun stuff) and how the human body technically has a wavelength. So if we could figure out the necessary wavelength of the right carrier wave, we could theoretically transmit ourselves over distance – it’s “landing” at the other end (not to mention maintaining cohesion during transmission) that would be tricky.

We also talked about tachyons and how they could have been used as a starship’s source of motion, likening a tachyon field to a gust of wind on a ship’s sail. Except this wind pushed on everything in the ship at the same time, hence why the crew weren’t thrown into a bulkhead at light speed. Ouch.

Could go for days just talking about wormholes, heh.

Same goes for a lot of the material in Star Wars, though Lucas did take more freedom with the theories behind the pseudoscience than Roddenberry did. He just used the Force as his universal glue for holding his universe together.

Only cheesy B-list science fiction takes the sort of liberties you are talking about. The good scifi … nay, the BEST scifi – sticks to the limits of what we know to be true and think is within the realm of (known) possibility. Plus maybe just a dash of whimsical thinking and flight of fantasy, just to spice it up and make the viewers sit up and take notice.

Which is why you no longer see movies about giant spiders and the like, other than on late nights on the … gawd I can’t believe I’m gonna say this … “SyFy” (::shudders:: bastards) channel. The science-savvy will mutter “square-cube law, you dolts” and change the channel. Can’t suspend your disbelief when you know it is utterly impossible under known rules. 😀

“Same goes for a lot of the material in Star Wars, though Lucas did take more freedom with the theories behind the pseudoscience than Roddenberry did. He just used the Force as his universal glue for holding his universe together.”

But what theories do we have now, that are currently looking for that concrete proof to back up the empirical evidence already collected? Dark Matter & Dark Energy.

They used to call it “missing matter” because they could calculate the mass in a solar system or galaxy, but there wasn’t enough gravity to hold everything together. By methods of “gravitational lensing,” they know that there’s some type of matter out there, but haven’t actually *seen* it yet. Dark Matter is that “missing mass” that holds things together.

Hubble discovered that, not only is the universe still expanding, but the expansion is *accelerating*, by calculating the “red shift” of the light seen from other stars. Dark Energy is the theory of what is *accelerating* the continuing expansion of the universe.

Just as George Lucas postulates “the Force” as a form of energy that can be directed by the will of a sentient mind, is that much different from the occasional encounters we humans, in real life, have with telepathy or telekinesis?

There really doesn’t seem to be as much “pseudo” in George’s “science” than you might think, at first glance at it. But even as modern day “Jedi-ism” religion/cult is practiced, it’s as much a Code of Honor like the Japanese Samurai practiced Bushido, regardless of whether a person actually has any “power” or not.

Ignoring the square-cube law not only makes it not science-fiction, but any fiction with giant creatures is unwatchable? That’s really stupid and extreme. In the fantasy genre, there was nothing to believe in the first place. Anyone who cares that much is a pretentious and no fun.

I mentioned the square-cube law in reference, specifically, to things such as the giant insect movies. Which are not based in a sword-and-sorcery type fantasy where one can suspend their disbelief via the conduit of “magic” or the supernatural; hence why I don’t necessarily have a problem with giants but if we are talking about Attack of the 50ft Woman, well don’t get me started on that. But instead the type of movie I mentioned are typically more or less reality-based sci-fi horror/drama where they blame radiation, toxic waste, or whatever the demon-of-the-day is. Their logic is inconsistent and falls apart.

Notice I also mention things like Star Wars where those known “rules” of science are more strenuously pressed but they have other means of explaining the possibilities.

If I were to simply get stoned, suspend my reason altogether and just zone out to enjoy the movie, that would be one thing. But I am the type who enjoys what I consider to be good science fiction – the kind where I don’t have to put my brain in neutral to enjoy it, but instead can look at the fantastic ideas they present and think to myself “now, wouldn’t that be cool …”.

Gravity on non-rotating ships. (SW/ST)
Fights between star-ships taking place within visual range. (SW/ST)
Droids that can’t shoot at a faster pace than a biological muscle can twirl a sword. (SW)
Black-holes spontaneously generating mass and thus having the gravity to pull in things that were not substantially attracted to the object that has been rendered a black-hole. (ST)

We’re discovering that what we “knew” about gravity is only scratching the surface. The concept of generating gravimetric forces artificially is within the realm of possibility.

“Fights between star-ships taking place within visual range. (SW/ST)”

Fighting past visual range means you aren’t tracking the target, your sensors and targetting computers are. Which means your accuracy is limited to theirs. Especially considering how fast the ships might be moving, the delay in sensor feedback at great distances – yeah, royal nightmare. Especially with anything close to our current level of tech.

“Droids that can’t shoot at a faster pace than a biological muscle can twirl a sword. (SW)”

Please tell me you’re not serious? Even disregarding response times (I click one icon and a processor ticking 4 billion times a second still needs 3 or 4 seconds to open a file?!?) which would be fantastic for a semi-AI you completely discount the restrictions of their mechanical bodies. That blaster has to be aimed, those actuators cannot go anywhere near as fast as a computer chip. Add in the “magic” of a Jedi’s premonition, knowing the act a split second before it happens – and I can write that one off as “fantastic, but possible”.

“Black-holes spontaneously generating mass and thus having the gravity to pull in things that were not substantially attracted to the object that has been rendered a black-hole. (ST)”

Meh. We have never had direct observation of a black hole, let alone anything resembling actual study. Even the science of what we “know” about singularities is hardly any more solid than the sci fi stories that talk about them. I will not criticize a sci fi series that doesn’t happen to follow the same theories I myself am following and instead just appreciate them as a different angle on the idea.

No more than the whole point of talking to your girlfriend is to get sex.

God’s a person, not a vending machine, and like all people, we don’t spend time with him just to get something from him–and, like all people, he might (gasp!) disagree with us. And not do what we want!

A God who does exactly what you want all the time is not a God. He’s some kind of pathophysiological self-delusion into blind happiness–or maybe the Force–or something like that.

“Are you saying people don’t/shouldn’t wish for what they’re desirous of? I thought that was the whole point.”

Then with all due respect, you’ve sorely missed the whole point.

You can pray for anything you want, but the fact that you didn’t get the answer you want, when you wanted it or how you expected it is hardly evidence of God’s non-existence. Rather, it is indicative of mankind’s arrogance in presuming to know better than the Being they’re purportedly praying to for guidance in achieving their goals. And yes, like a child asking for copious amounts of candy and cake from a parent, sometimes the answer is indeed, “No.”

Frankly, if all I got from my kids was “gimme, gimme, gimme,” I’d never hang out with them, either.

Yes, but let’s be reasonable here. We are at least mostly self-aware beings with the ability to go out and really screw things up. At the very least, the no should be explicit, but an explanation about why something is a really bad idea is very useful.

You may not get it, but it’s not ridiculous. It’s just the way things work. Physics doesn’t work because you believe in it. If you try to ignore it away it will just affect you all the same. It’s all about what you learn from looking at reality the way it is. By study and trial and error. If you find inconsistencies in science then you dig at it create new theories new experiments and you continue to refine your knowledge. Science means never having to say “I don’t accept that reality because it conflicts with my beliefs.”

I understand how science works. It’s thinking that you can win an argument using a hypothetical future where mutant fleas rule the world as proof that I don’t get. It’s the fact that I know people in real life who do this and they are regarded as scientists because they are using this method to argue against religion instead of for it.

I find it interesting that Physicists and many other “hard” scientists are actually moving more toward intelligent design based upon their scientific research, in spite of previously held beliefs. It’s the “soft” sciences (anthropology, sociology, etc.) that are building these arguments.

I still don’t quite understand why people think that religion and science can’t go together. Most of the influental scientists between roman times and the 20th century have been outright theologists, quite often priests, or at least believing members of the church. Similar thing goes for the great muslimic scientists of age.
This is true up to, and including, for example Darwin.

Of course the bible can’t be taken literally word by word. That’s obvious by the fact already, that there are contradictions to be found in it. Yet that does not mean that there can’t be something like God. There’s no absolute proof neither for nor against it’s existence. And believing in it does not make you a better scientist, nor does the opposite.

Doing what you do, I’m sure you can relate to misinterpretation due to personal bias. How many of your cartoons have been misconstrued by readers, even though you had gone to great lengths to make your meaning as simple and plain as you could? Even scientific text isn’t immune to such human fallacy, much less something so riddled with parable and metaphor as the Bible.

I agree with you Lukkai. Most of my science profs in college were Deists (believing in god but not ascribing to any religion). So they could resolve the questions that physics can answer and still leave room for God as the original causation for the universe. They just didn’t believe all the things that you must break in order to make the bible be read as absolute truth rather than (as Syndog says) loaded with parable and metaphor and probably even some human bias.

One professor even said that if you notice the constant ‘c’ for the speed of light is at the core of most of our physical constants that define the shape of space and time. Therefore it quite literally comes down to light being the first thing created. You can now get a t-shirt that says “And God said:” followed by Maxwell’s Equations. A light-hearted way of showing that science and deism are not inseparable at all. Science and religion? Well that’s got a trickier history including killing people for believing in what science has discovered and proven.

This is inaccurate. According to modern models of the big bang, in the first few moments of the universe all that was created was vast slurry of particles and anti-particles annihilating each other over and over and over…. and before that the space these particles occupied had to come into being. Light, as photons or waveforms could not have come first because there wouldn’t have been space-time for it to occupy.

While your principle is sound (it is possible to reconcile the two simply through allowing a deity the ability to exempt itself from physical law), your supporting argument is willfully ignorant to the history of religion.

Thanks to the reliance on religion and the reliance of religion on writings to maintain cohesion, collections of knowledge were mostly controlled by the church in feudal times. It is important to remember that the turmoil following the collapse of Rome saw the destruction of most other private hordes of information and limited new accumulation. However, the reverence for the religion of the region protected religion’s stores of knowledge even when the church was defeated in warfare.

Thus, the only place to become a scholar at the time was through religion. The bias’ of their particular religion were already in place prior to them becoming philosophers*.

*The scientific movement was founded by the Illuminati, who were persecuted by the church, as a branch of philosophy. They existed, they were persecuted, the organization is probably not still around as its sole mission was eventually accomplished (the establishment of science as a recognized discipline).

Hm… no offense. But for someone accusing me of ignoring the history of religion (well, religion in the former provinces of western rome that is), you do an amazingly good job in blanking out huge parts of it.
You make it sound as if the western christian church (later the catholic church) was completely against any kind of science. Which, regardless of the well-known hunts against some societies or scientists, overall is simply not true. Fostering humanity’s understanding of the world and the principles it worked by was of importance for the church too. And when a theory arose that seemed to contradict scripture, it was not instantly dismissed and everyone supporting it branded a heretic. Instead there were clear rules by which the theory in question was scrutinised. More often that not, they were found as correct and interpretation of scripture was revised accordingly. Of course, none of these cases ever gained as much popularity with today’s crowd as for example the Galilei trial.
Speaking of which: Did you know that several astronomists of the church had made discoveries of their own which actually would have proven Galilei’s findings? That he himself however rejected them and denounced the men behind as schnooks that couldn’t possibly have found something he missed. (Actually he was quite a bit less diplomatic than me here. And quite full of himself.) That way, he not only derived himself of proof for his theories in way of findings that had already been accepted by the church. He also directly insulted some of its leading experts on the matter, alienating them completely and consequently leading to them speaking up against him.
In short: As much of a genius that he was, he also was an arrogant dunce. And mainly responsible for the church rejecting his findings. But I digress.

Another mistake: Non-religious universities in Europe started up during the 11th century. A good 700 years before the Illuminati were founded. Of course only the noble and wealthy (quite often the same) could afford to attend those schools. But it doesn’t change the fact that the church stopped being the only place to become a scholar in Europe as early as the 11th to 14th century (depending on region).

What gets me is the people here defending the Bible as “not incompatible with science” are doing it with all seriousness. Come off it. This is a book written by people 1800 to 2500 years ago before just about ALL that we know about the universe was discovered. There was no knowledge about nature. They knew nothing about physics, little of chemistry. They were making things up as they went along. Genesis was all guess work, and there is so much hatred, violence and abuse at the hands of “God” in the Bible. No wonder they wrote how you had to fear God, he was HORRID to his followers, and worse to the rest! Then when we started to understand how the universe works, the church that grew up out of those Bible stories suppressed them, tortured or killed them. And we are supposed to still follow this outdated tome that has resisted everything we’ve learned in the last 2,000 years? WHY?

That’s easy, actually. The bible is not wholly followed literally by any one particular branch of faith, at least not in first world countries. So it is about choosing how metaphorically you want to read it, as well as being aware of the principle that the rules of a loving parent should change to fit circumstances.

One of the most impressive pieces of Jewish law is the prohibition on pig meat, as these omnivorous scavengers likely posed serious infection risk if not cooked very thoroughly. However, it is easy to cook pork or bacon properly Today, at least in first world countries.

The fun question is whether the Jews just saw the slop the pigs were eating and decided to prohibit them or really had insight into the real issue (whether through God or through an advanced understanding of disease for the time period).

Not necessarily true at all, nearly all physics is based on models, those models were also arbitrarily assigned because they fit the condition most of the time. However there are always outliers and these values break the model. Therefore there is a more accurate description possible, but no one has come up with it yet. Putting these hypothesis together yields this comic is not funny at all. Learn before you write.

Ah yes physics, that which has been and shall ever more be the same – until it changes. The universe was to expand then slow, and contract etc, now discovered that it is in fact expanding at an ever increasing rate. ‘C’ the speed of light was supposed to be a constant, but now we find that it can be either accelerated &/or even warped so that faster than light travel is at least theoretically possible – go for it. But we’ll never know it all – and from the in the Bible – Heb 11:3 … the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.

True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us. – Attributed to Socrates, quoted by Plato

Ignorance is bliss. – Thomas Gray

Faith is comforting because it provides solid answers. However, in order for our understanding of the world to improve, we must first identify areas where our understanding is flawed. This comes about by finding a belief we cannot prove and discarding it for an unknown, then seeking a better resolution.

The quote from Socrates suggests that wisdom is attained by identifying those things we cannot resolve and leaving them unresolved. I’m inclined to agree, as this allows us to avoid exacerbating problems when we do not understand them, and either defer to the judgement of those with more applicable knowledge or seek better understanding before approaching the problem.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” – Matthew 7:3

One who believes that there own understanding is complete is blind to their deficiencies. This lesson is about arrogance. Arrogance does not solely manifest as the belief that one’s actions are always good. It is equally arrogant to assume that your knowledge is correct.

As to the argument that “if faith answers the questions, why do we need to improve our understanding?” history is mostly a march of greater understanding, with only a few localized regressions. This does apply to matters on which religion has historically weighed in.